I saw this and thought I would post it. I'm not saying I agree etc. CHARITIES ARE FOR SUCKERS By Ted Rall Tue Sep 13, 8:06 PM ET Leave Katrina Relief Efforts to Government NEW YORK--Hurricane Katrina has prompted Americans to donate more than $700 million to charity, reports the Chronicle of Philanthropy. So many suckers, so little foresight. Government has been shirking its basic responsibilities since the '80s, when Ronald Reagan sold us his belief that the sick, poor and unlucky should no longer count on "big government" to help them, but should rather live and die at the whim of contributors to private charities. The Katrina disaster, whose total damage estimate has risen from $100 to $125 billion, marks the culmination of Reagan's privatization of despair. The American Red Cross leads the post-Katrina sweepstakes, quickly closing in on the $534 million it took in just after 9/11. But Red Cross spokeswoman Sheila Graham told the AP it needs another half billion "to provide emergency relief over the coming weeks for thousands of evacuees who have scattered among 675 of its shelters in 23 states." Shelley Borysiewicz of Catholic Charities USA, which has raised $7 million thus far, also continues to solicit donations: "We don't want people to lose sight of the fact that this is going to take years of recovery, and we're going to be there to help the people who fall through the cracks." What "cracks"? Why should New Orleans' dispossessed have to live in private shelters? We live in the United States, not Mali. There's only one reason flood victims aren't getting help from the government: because the government refuses to help them. The Red Cross and its cohorts are letting lazy, incompetent and corrupt politicians off the hook, and so are their donors. It's ridiculous, but people evidently need to be reminded that the United States is not only the world's wealthiest nation but the wealthiest society that has existed anywhere, ever. The U.S. government can easily pick up the tab for people inconvenienced by bad weather--if helping them is a priority. That goes double for Katrina, a disaster caused by the government's conscious decision to eliminate the $50 million pittance needed to improve New Orleans' levees. For our leaders the optional war against Iraq is such a priority, which the Congressional Budget Office expects to cost $600 billion by 2010. That's four or five Katrinas right there. (That's also where the levee money went.) Because rich people are always a political priority, their taxes have been slashed by $4 trillion over a decade--the equivalent of 32 Katrinas. So worried are our public servants about the tax burden placed on the rich that they're looking out for rich dead people. This is why they've gutted the estate tax that, at a cost of $75 billion annually, will run half a Katrina a year. Trickle-down economists beginning with Milton Friedman shout "starve the beast," but while the social programs are put on a diet, the mean and powerful pig out more than ever. Disaster relief is too important to be left to private fundraisers, with their self-sustaining fundraising expenses, administrative overhead (nine percent for the Red Cross) and their parochial, often religious, agendas. It's also way too expensive. In the final analysis, after the floodwaters have receded and the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans have been razed under eminent domain, major charities will be lucky if they've managed to raise one percent of the total cost of Katrina. Congress, recognizing the reality that only the federal government possesses the means to deal with the calamity, has already allocated $58 billion--over 70 times the amount raised by charities--to flood relief along the Gulf of Mexico. As Bush says, that's only a "down payment." Cutting a check to the Red Cross isn't just a vote for irresponsible government. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what you'll end up paying for Katrina in increased taxes. Granted, in terms of popularity of likelihood of success, trying to make a case against giving money to charities compares to lobbying against puppies. The impulse to donate, after all, is rooted in our best human traits. As we watched New Orleanians die of thirst, disease and anarchic violence in the face of Bush Administration disinterest and local government incompetence, millions of us did the only thing we thought we could to do to help: cut a check or click a PayPal button. Tragically, that generosity feeds into the mindset of the sinister ideologues who argue that government shouldn't help people--the very mindset that caused the levee break that turned Katrina into a holocaust and led to official unresponsiveness. And it is already setting the stage for the next avoidable disaster. It's time to "starve the beast": private charities used by the government to justify the abdication of its duties to its citizens. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/200509...MpIm5es0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Whut a garshdurned li-buh-rul! Send him to Gitmo where he belongs!! The fact that the $600 billion pricetag on the war in Iraq makes up 4-5 Katrina relief efforts should make fiscal conservatives who voted for Bush very very proud....NOT.
Wait...what happens in the meantime. If you THINK the govt should be doing these jobs, that's fine. But they're not. So what do you tell the person who needs help RIGHT NOW??? "Sorry..I don't agree politically with helping you privately. I pay taxes. Good bye."
Which part? That Iraq was 4/5 Katrinas, or that because rich people are always a political priority, their taxes have been slashed by $4 trillion over a decade--the equivalent of 32 Katrinas?
I think the writer is basically using Katrina as a reason to raise taxes. His line of reasoning troubles me because it seems that there would never be a reason not to raise taxes. If Bush didn't create the 10 percent bracket - well that's a Katrina in lost revenue! Also - I haven't heard anyone from the right side of the poltical spectrum argue that the hurricane victims should just fend for themselves (as the writer itimates Reagan would do). Finally - it's in pretty poor taste to belittle the charitable donations and organizations that have helped this cause. 700 million dollars is going to help a lot of people - and probably saved a lot of lives. Every bit can help.
Fend for themselves? Hell no. They'd be screwed. Use Katrina as a catalyst to propel the segment of victims that have historically been at lowest end of the socio-economic into the unventured territory of self-sufficiency and productivity? I pray. Literally. That is my prayer and hope. And seeing what specifically the city of Denver is doing (I saw a bit on the news last night) bringing in evacuees and giving them homes, jobs, cars (in some cases), and jobs I see that this prayer is answerable.
So cities, rather than the federal government, should provide these things to evacuees? If the city or state level provides this, should they be reimbursed by the federal government?
I agree with Uprising. How about this: government spends a bunch of money to help people and private citizens spend a bunch of money to help people. I'm surprised someone on the left would find something to object to with the rich and well-to-do in America give away their money to help the poor and needy. Don't do that you rich bastards, keep your money! There seems to be an assumption on the left (I see it from my father who, I'm sure, wholeheartedly agrees with this article), that it is understood by all that, of course, that citizens make governments in order to provide a safety nets for the citizenry. That wasn't common place in the world until the 19th century and you didn't see it in the States until the 1930s. I personally do believe that, as a servant to the citizenry that generally wants some safety net, it is the responsibility of the govt to provide some. But, that isn't the meaning of its existence nor can it or should it displace the role of the civic sphere in philanthropy. The stronger our civic sphere is, the better off we are as a society. Why would someone want to stifle that? The rest of the world is trying to build it.
Because the article addresses the wrong issues and is misleading in principle. There is nothing wrong with people caring enough to help their neighbors in a time of crisis. Especially in the significant and successful ways that are happening at this time. There is something very wrong with depending upon a centralized federal government to take the primary resposibility for the personal responsibilities of its citizenry. That leads to a poverty class state and then eventually to tyranny. It is too late to avoid the latter, but not too late to appreciate the former. Let the charities help. Even little churches like ours who have worked tirelessly for the last two weeks to feed, clothe, find housing and jobs for many displaced families. Watching families give their nights and weekends to go from hotel to hotel, shelter to shelter and help people in real need and come to church on Sunday morning happy that they made new friends, gave what they could (and more) and help start new beginnings for their neighbors from New Orleans and Mississippi is one of the brightest things that has happened at our church in some time. A team from our church went immediately to New Orleans (the Thurs. after the levees broke). They were not allowed in. They went over to Gulfport, Miss. and they were allowed to feed people, give out water. The first few days the National Guard even recruited them to guard buildings to deter looting. They were volunteers and they volunteered because they cared. They worked with the local police chief -his force was exausted. The police officers had not spent enough time at home to even begin to take care of their own families and homes. The ones from our church immediately spent the next part of their time working on the homes of police officers. They went again this past weekend. My oldest son is in Gulfport working right now with the clean up and he will be there about another week. I support all the volunteers, donators and private charities that got involved. As far as governement goes, that is another whole complex issue I don't even want to get involved with.
I just think it would be nice to have the same kind money for disaster relief as we do for invading countries and nuclear weapons etc.
That's really bad. He can make his point without dragging up some dead guy. When some people say that the left does not support the troops - they probably mean someone like Rall. I think it's pretty obvious that he holds soldiers in utter contempt.
700 million in instant goodwill is a drop in the bucket for what the US gov and insurance companies will have to shell out in the long term.
